Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:01:55.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rice cultivar response to sublethal concentrations of glyphosate and paraquat late in the season

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2020

Justin McCoy Open the ORCID record for Justin McCoy [Opens in a new window] ,
Bobby Golden ,
Jason Bond ,
Darrin Dodds ,
Taghi Bararpour  and
Jeff Gore
Justin McCoy*
Affiliation:
Research/Extension Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, North Mississippi Research and Extension Center, Verona, MS, USA
Bobby Golden
Affiliation:
Research/Extension Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Jason Bond
Affiliation:
Research/Extension Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Darrin Dodds
Affiliation:
Department Head, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Taghi Bararpour
Affiliation:
Research/Extension Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Jeff Gore
Affiliation:
Research/Extension Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA.
*
Author for correspondence: Justin McCoy, Research/Extension Professor, Mississippi State University, North Mississippi Research and Extension Center, PO Box 1690, Verona, MS38879. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Differential tolerance may be observed among rice cultivars with desiccant exposure events during rice reproduction and ripening. Five field studies were established at the Mississippi State University Delta Research and Extension Center in Stoneville, MS, to determine the effects of exposure to sublethal concentrations of common desiccants across multiple rice cultivars. Rice cultivars in the study were ‘CLXL745’, ‘XL753’, ‘CL163’, ‘Rex’, and ‘Jupiter’. Desiccant treatments included no desiccant, paraquat, or glyphosate and were applied at the 50% heading growth stage respective to cultivar. Differential injury estimates among cultivars and desiccant treatments was observed when glyphosate or paraquat was applied at 50% heading. Injury from glyphosate at 50% heading was nondetectable across all cultivars. However, injury following paraquat applications was >7% across all rating intervals and cultivars. Hybrid cultivars exhibited less injury with paraquat applications than the inbred cultivars in the study. Rice following exposure to glyphosate or paraquat at 50% heading growth stage produced rough rice grain yield decreases ranging from 0% to 20% and 9% to 21%, respectively. Rough rice grain yield decreases were observed across all cultivars following paraquat exposure, and all inbred cultivars following glyphosate exposure. Across desiccant treatment, head rice yield was reduced in three of five cultivars in the study. When pooled across cultivar, paraquat applications cause a head rice yield reduction of 10%, whereas rice yield following glyphosate application remained >95%. Although differential tolerance among cultivars to paraquat or glyphosate exposure was observed, impacts on grain quality coupled with yield reductions suggests extreme rice sensitivity to exposure to sublethal concentrations of these desiccants at the 50% heading growth stage.

Keywords

GlyphosateparaquatriceOryza sativa L.Desiccantricedriftoff-targetparaquatglyphosaterice cultivar
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 251 - 257
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Prashant Jha, Iowa State University

References

Adair, CR, Bollich, CN, Bowman, DH, Jordon, NE, Johnson, TH, Webb, BD, Atkins, JG (1972) Rice breeding and testing methods in the United States. Pages 25–75 in Rice in the United States: Varieties and Production. Handbook 289. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research ServiceGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (1999) Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 7:97–102 Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018) 2019 Weed management suggestion for Mississippi row crops. Pages 16–23 in Bond JA., ed. MS Pub 3171. Mississippi State: Mississippi State University Extension Service and Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment StationGoogle Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, JA, Walker, TW (2011) Differential tolerance of clearfield rice cultivars to Imazamox. Weed Technol 25:192–197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, JA, Walker, TW (2012) Effect of postflood Quinclorac applications on commercial rice cultivars. Weed Technol 26:183–188 Google Scholar
Bond, JA, Walker, TW, Webster, EP, Buehring, NW, Harrell, DL (2007) Rice cultivar response to penoxsulam. Weed Technol 21:961–965 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buehring, N (2008) Rice growth and development. In Mississippi Rice Growers Guide. Publication 2255. Starkville: Mississippi State University Extension Service Google Scholar
Calhoun, JS, Barber, LT, Norsworthy, JK, Doherty, RC, Hill, ZT (2016) Off-Target Drift of Paraquat and Sodium Chlorate on late-season rice. Pages 181–183 in Norman RJ, Moldenhaour KA, eds. B.R. Wells Arkansas Rice Research Studies 2016. Publication 643. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research ServiceGoogle Scholar
Counce, PA, Wells, BR, Norman, RJ, Leong, J (1994) Simulated hail damage to rice: II. Effects during four reproductive growth stages. Agron J 86:1113–1118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, B, Scott, RC, Norsworthy, JK, Gbur, E (2011) Response of rice (Oryza sativa) to low rates of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 25:198–203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, CJ, Barrentine, WL, Kilen, TC (1976) Inheritance of sensitivity of soybean cultivars to metribuzin. Crop Sci 16:119–120 Google Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL, Jones, CA (2002) Effects of carrier volume on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 16:587–592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, JL, Baker, JB (1990) Tolerance of rice (Oryza sativa) cultivars to fenoxaprop, sethoxydim, and haloxyfop. Weed Sci 38:528–531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golden, BR, Lawrence, BH, Bond, JA, Edwards, HM, Walker, TW (2017) Clomazone and starter nitrogen fertilizer effects on growth and yield of hybrid and inbred rice cultivars. Weed Technol 31:216–217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensley, JB, Webster, EP, Blouin, DC, Harrell, DL, Bond, JA (2013) Response of rice to drift rates of glyphosate applied at low carrier volumes. Weed Technol 27:257–262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, CH, Shaner, DL, Krutz, LJ, Walker, TW, Buehring, N, Henry, WB, Thomas, WE, Wilcut, JW (2005) Rice (Oryza sativa) response to drift rates of glyphosate. Pest Manag Sci 61:1161–1167 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurtz, ME, Street, JE (2003) Response of rice (Oryza sativa) to glyphosate applied to simulate drift. Weed Technol 17:234–238 Google Scholar
Lanclos, DY, Webster, EP, Zhang, W (1999) Glufosinate-resistant rice lines treated with glufosinate at intervals throughout the season. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 52:213 Google Scholar
Lyman, N, Nalley, LL (2013) Economic analysis of hybrid rice performance in Arkansas. Agron J 105:977–988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, KS, Sha, X, Moldenhauer, KK, Linscombe, SD, Lyman, NB, Nalley, LL (2014) Rice. Pages 267–292 in Smith, S, Diers, B, Specht, J, Carver, B, eds. Gains, Yield in Major U.S. Field Crops. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, and SSSA Google Scholar
Montgomery, GB, Bond, JA, Golden, BR, Gore, J, Edwards, HM, Eubank, TW, Walker, TW (2014) Response of commercial rice cultivars to postemergence applications of saflufenacil. Weed Technol 28:679–684 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudge, CR, Webster, EP, Leon, CT, Zhang, W (2005) Rice (Oryza sativa) cultivar tolerance to clomazone in water-seeded production. Weed Technol 19:907–911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namenek, RC, Smith, KL, Branson, JW (2001) Rice yield and herbicide symptomology as influenced by off-target herbicide rate and timing. Pages 92–96 in Norman RJ, Meullenet JF, eds. B.R. Wells Arkansas Rice Research Studies 2001. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Service Publication 495. Fayetteville: Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research ServiceGoogle Scholar
Perez, FB, Laca, EA, Mackill, DJ, Fernandez, GM, Fischer, AJ (2006) Relating rice traits to weed competitiveness and yield: a path analysis. Weed Sci 54:1122–1131 Google Scholar
Renner, KA, Meggitt, WF, Penner, D (1988) Response of corn cultivars to imazaquin. Weed Sci 36:625–628 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runyan, WK, McNeil, WK, Peeper, TF (1982) Differential tolerance of wheat cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci 30:94–97 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxton, AM (1998) A macro for converting mean separation output into letter grouping in ProcMixed. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS users Group International. Cary, NC: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
Scherder, EF, Talbert, RE, Clark, SD (2004) Rice (Oryza sativa) cultivar tolerance to clomazone. Weed Technol 18:140–144 Google Scholar
Slaton, NA, Golden, BR, Delong, RE, Mozaffari, M (2010) Correlation and Calibration of Soil Potassium Availability with Soybean Yield and Trifoliate Potassium. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74:1642–1651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed. (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 240 p Google Scholar
Solomon, WL, Kanter, DG, Walker, TW, Baird, GE III, Scheffler, BE, Lanford, LS, Shaifer, S (2012) Registration of ‘Rex’ southern long-grain rice. J Plant Registrations 6:27–30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenefrida, I, Croughan, TP, Utomo, HS, Meche, MM, Wang, XH, Herrington, JA (2004) Herbicide resistance profiles in Clearfield rice. Pages 178–179 in Proceedings of the 30th Rice Technical Working Group Meeting. Rayne, LA: Rice Technical Working Group, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Rice Research StationGoogle Scholar
Willingham, SD, McCaulet, GN, Senseman, SA, Chandler, JM, Richburg, JS, Lassiter, RB, Mann, RK (2008) Influence of flood interval and cultivar on rice tolerance to penoxsulam. Weed Technol 22:114–118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, TM, Grover, R, Wallace, K, Shewchuk, SR, Maybank, J (1992) Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. Pages 29–52 in The Role of Application Factors in the Effectiveness and Drift of Herbicides. Regina, SK: Agriculture CanadaGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W, Webster, EP, Braverman, MP (2000) Effect of rotational crop herbicides on water- and dry-seeded Oryza sativa . Weed Sci 48:755–760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar